Forum:100 edits+ to get on chat?
This is a chat rule already enforced on the Sonic wiki, in which someone needs 100 edits (50 of those have to be mainstream) to be aloud on chat, otherwise they'll get kicked immediately. I reckon this is a perfect solution for our chat problem (not saying to get rid of the logs) as it will get rid of those who join chat just to spam and troll, yes it will have loads of problems but thats what this forums about isn't it . [[User:Prisinorzero|'Prisinor']][[User_talk:Prisinorzero|'zero']] 18:13, February 18, 2012 (UTC) Support Tentative support: It's not a bad idea, but I feel it might not really be the answer... Support Make it 500. >:D Support No make it 5 million >:D [[User:Darth henry|'Father' ]][[User talk:Darth henry|'and' ]][[special:contributions/Darth henry|''' Son']] May the force be with you. 18:21, February 18, 2012 (UTC) '''Support:' great idea but i think people might spam 100 edits just to be allowed on chat. 'More Support Than anyone else' WE NEED IT!!! -- } 01:52, February 21, 2012 (UTC) Oppose Personally, I don't like to make edits here, but enjoy using the chat. I don't spam, troll (where-ever that word came from, I don't know), and if people do spam, they will get kicked immediately! So I am against this idea. Super Scribblenaut 19:16, February 18, 2012 (UTC) * Weak Oppose - Nope, I believe chat is a tool for the whole community: even if you're new or not. Don't really think we should burden the pressure of users to edit (as they can get desperate and edit liberally poor); also, like I said, this is also a tool freely accessible to anyone- edits or no edits. 19:33, February 18, 2012 (UTC) :* Oppose That's one of my main problems with the idea. *'No' - CJC 19:57, February 18, 2012 (UTC) **To expand, see below and above, and also, I can't speak for other chat mods, but I don't have enough time to check every single person constantly to see if they have reached 100 edits... - CJC 11:26, February 19, 2012 (UTC) *I see this as prejudice. We already have problems with newcomers being "bitten". I think that this will just make it worst as they'll feel they aren't wanted. 19:59, February 18, 2012 (UTC) **Plus, it could encourage spam/low-quality edits/comments. 20:01, February 18, 2012 (UTC) ***'Oppose' - These reasons. - 20:19, February 18, 2012 (UTC) *'Oppose', doubt it will improve the quality of people in it... 00:30, February 19, 2012 (UTC) *'Strong Oppose'. This will likely lead to users spamming to get 100 edits. 00:33, February 19, 2012 (UTC) * Nope, don't see why we should restrict chat. 02:10, February 19, 2012 (UTC) * Strong Oppose - I think this would cause a ton of problems... something like 10 edits might work, but not 100. Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) * Oppose We want the soloution; Not the problem. -- 04:31, February 19, 2012 (UTC) *[[User:Agent Charge|'Charge']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'talk']] Go Briki! 01:47, February 20, 2012 (UTC) *No siree bob on a corn cob 01:50, February 20, 2012 (UTC) * Strong oppose. FB100Z • talk • 03:12, February 21, 2012 (UTC) ** Please keep the language civil, you can get your point across without swearing your head off. Thanks. 03:23, February 21, 2012 (UTC) Comments